Yay -- maintaining type definitions for arbitrarily complex nested dicts/arrays that are often built up when processing data and in all manner of different ways.
You know why "Any" appears in Typescript so much?
I doubt anyone here is an actual programmer, if you were you would understand that having to define type definitions for "objects" that are often just parsed from JSON API responses or constructed through the processing of data is the biggest pain in all languages, and why typeless languages are convenient and popular for this kind of work.
Oh and then the API response changes slighty, breaking your type definition, whereas typeless Python keep chugging along because it is very tolerant of small changes to underlying data, especially if written in a defensive manner.
If you want types, why are you using Python at all? Go write bloated Java/.NET that takes a team of 10 six months to put together a simple app that would be written in week in Python.
> Well, arrays and objects are quite special in JavaScript. If you pass them to a function it will pass the reference to the array or object which means it will mutate the original array
Unlike every other language that passes arrays by value. Ye gad.
Well those same media companies pushed to get paid by Facebook for their own posts (they they post) on Facebook's platform -- so it seems right they should take responsibility for them.
> In a network game, if player 1 opens a door, you want player 2 to see the door opening IFF they are within the "network relevancy" radius of the door.
This is all kind of wrong. You want players to see the door opening IFF they can see the door at all. If incompetent developers can't achieve that and come up with some other solution and a lame excuse to go with it, that does not change the desire from a player perspective.